Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apples MacBook Pro: Rotting Core? What Apple Doesn't Want You To Realize.
- Thread starter wikoogle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That is NOT the point
I am aggravated by the fact that apple is selling OLD tech for PREMIUM prices
That is what grinds my gears
To accept this behavior by apple is somewhat shocking and sad
As a consumer, i look forward to getting a 15" Core i7 MBP asap (and wish it had happened last month).
As a stockholder, i have absolutely zero complaints about AAPL's “performance”.
To me its not all about specs. Its not all about how fast it is, But also how well it works, if its reliable, is it efficient?
Apple is not about to put out a battery that is good for 7 hours just to spec their laptop out to suck the battery back down to a few hours time. Then you have all these people complaining why their battery do not last long, like their older ones use too.
A laptop is not a desktop computer. They were designed for different uses.
Apple would not succeeded like they have by doing what everybody else does or to submitting to popular opinion.
Apple is not about to put out a battery that is good for 7 hours just to spec their laptop out to suck the battery back down to a few hours time. Then you have all these people complaining why their battery do not last long, like their older ones use too.
A laptop is not a desktop computer. They were designed for different uses.
Apple would not succeeded like they have by doing what everybody else does or to submitting to popular opinion.
Frankly, I wouldn't distiguish a C2D from an egg if it's flat enough, so these specs, besides the superficial numbers, mean squat to me.
But my question goes on a different direction. When MBP was released 9 months ago it was like $2000 (give or take depending in the model). As of today, most of the components inside are probably 30% or more cheaper than they were when the computer was released. So, why the computer is still $2000? I understand that specs change fast, and you can get a PC and all that, but why Apple is making a lot more money from an outdated product than they are for new products. Why the reduction in price for them does not become a reduction in price for us?
But my question goes on a different direction. When MBP was released 9 months ago it was like $2000 (give or take depending in the model). As of today, most of the components inside are probably 30% or more cheaper than they were when the computer was released. So, why the computer is still $2000? I understand that specs change fast, and you can get a PC and all that, but why Apple is making a lot more money from an outdated product than they are for new products. Why the reduction in price for them does not become a reduction in price for us?
It's called monopoly. Nobody is allowed to put OSX on their machines. Psystar who used to sell PC's with OSX installed just got sued by Apple and is out of business selling computers with OS X installed. ( they have to pay $2 million to Apple apparently )
So Apple maintains a monopoly position and they don't have to compete with an other computer vendor, despite being the same hardware.
Exactly. And even if they are, it's not like the Core2Duo machines are suddenly too slow for that. Just because a newer architecture has come out doesn't mean that the previous generation is now terrible.
Last year I had two options for upgrading my desktop PC. It had a Core2Duo E6400 overclocked to 3 GHz. I could've sold it and replaced it with a Core i7 system, but I decided to just upgrade the processor to Core2Quad Q9500 because this was cheaper. I plan to keep this system for several years because the only thing that would be significantly faster with a Core i7 would be 3D/video rendering.
Then I got a 13" MBP. For most normal tasks it is just as fast as the desktop PC. Even for video rendering it has done just fine - it's not a task that is truly time critical IMO and during that I can keep working on other things just fine. I think people don't even understand how powerful modern computers are.
I buy Apple because I like OSX a lot but above all I like their hardware design. It's easy to use, elegant and intuitive. I think this is a big deal for many people, not the specs of the machine. We have a new HP Elitebook at work and I constantly facepalm when I see how poorly designed it is compared to the MBP. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be nice to have the latest hardware, but I don't think it's the most important aspect of a laptop.
8GB NAND onboard? BD? higher res screen?
sounds like something alien ware would do, not apple
its all about simplicity remember!
sounds like something alien ware would do, not apple
its all about simplicity remember!
He's kind of semi right
Although wikoogle seriously needs to lose his BD hard on, its just embarassing
Also i'll be honest i've been an apple devotee since '95 and don't remember the G1 and G2....there were any variations of the Powerpc processors.
You went from 68040 to the 600gen of processors, 603e 604e etc etc
But the megahertz myth was pretty much confirmed...powerpc processors pretty much always toasted the PII's and PIII's
Although wikoogle seriously needs to lose his BD hard on, its just embarassing
Also i'll be honest i've been an apple devotee since '95 and don't remember the G1 and G2....there were any variations of the Powerpc processors.
You went from 68040 to the 600gen of processors, 603e 604e etc etc
But the megahertz myth was pretty much confirmed...powerpc processors pretty much always toasted the PII's and PIII's
Even if the PowerPC processors were competitive at the time of release, Apple was still stuck with them for years after their obsolescence. They were using the G4 processor for years when IBM and Motorola were not as committed to their development. Moving to Intel was the smartest thing they could have done and has meant that Apples are at least competitive again.
Other than a few isolated benches that Apple would display, the majority of shared software that was benched on both platforms almost always favored Intel. I can only find online benches for the G5 and the P4 right now which support this.
Now if you want to make the argument clock for clock the PPC was a more powerful architecture, I can't disagree. The issue is that IBM was releasing 1ghz PPC's when Intel was releasing 2.5ghz P4's.
yup thats the arguement that was being made i think (in a round about sort of way). the power differences are still true to this very day! all you have to do is look at the POWER7 chips vs intels latest XEON counterparts. the POWER7 has more power when using less transistors (albeit at a slightly higher clock).
but yea, they are aimed at separate areas of computing, same with the older chips too - its really hard to compare them!
thats completely OT though, the fact is that i dont think apple needs to implement onboard NAND chips and all that crap, 95% of users would have NO CLUE about what it is! (nor would most retailers haha).
That's what i like too. Simple elegant solutions, both in terms of physical hardware design and OS. Together with Aperture 3 which is a killer app for me personally, i'm completely sold on an MBP. I'm just waiting for the new version... and then maybe a couple of weeks after that to see if there are any faults, if i can afford the time.
What's the point in buying a good looking laptop if the hardware is dated? Nobody likes buying out of date products. Everyone always wants the newest, best available for the price. And for the current price, they're ripping everybody off.
Sure, you can say most users don't care, but for those who are looking to get into Macs, it's a big deal. I'm not paying upwards of £1.5k for something that hasn't been properly updated for two years. I want my moneys worth!
Sure, you can say most users don't care, but for those who are looking to get into Macs, it's a big deal. I'm not paying upwards of £1.5k for something that hasn't been properly updated for two years. I want my moneys worth!
Can you imagine how that would work? 1st month, $1300. 6th month $1000. 9th month $800. New revision, back to $1300. Repeat.
IT DOESN'T WORK FOR LAPTOPS.
Why doesn't it? Laptops are still products that undergo revisions and changes, just like cars and TVs and god knows what else.
To be honest everyone is entitled to their own point of view and I can see the argument from both sides. However it is clear from the sales figures and the above industry growth in sales of MBP's that generally people don't care that the laptop's don't have Blu Ray drives or i5 processors in them. The majority of frequent users of these forums are likely to be tech geeks anyway and so will be a bigger issue to them that Apple is now currently behind the curve as far as new tech is concerned. However hopefully that will be addressed in the next few weeks.
Apple sells a niche product that's not all about specs. In the same way that you can buy a Ford that has more horsepower than a Mercedes, you pay a premium for OSX, fancy design, fancy retail stores where you can walk in and talk to a human about your computer, etc etc.
There's no rule that says the price must correlate with product age, specs, etc. and it's working just fine for Apple. Where other companies have been slashing their prices to stay competitive this past year (more due to the recession than product age etc.) Apple has stayed pretty consistent and kept their revenue up.
So what does that mean? It pretty much says to me that Joe Six-Pack who's looking for the best deal on a computer has not been, isn't, and won't be Apple's target market.
To say that Apple is a rip-off because a cheaper computer has a faster processor is kind of like saying that Mercedes SL's are a rip-off because you can get a voice-activated navigation system in a Ford Fusion and not in the SL.
Not everyone prioritizes the same way. Some people want a quality product that will stay relevant for years and are happy to pay a premium for that.
Were you stamping your feet at the same time that you typed this?
I couldn't agree with you more! People buy Apple products because it is Apple. Someone said to me, "you are not only buying a Mac, you are buying a lifestyle". In a way he is right.
If someone is willing to spend £1500 for a laptop (for example), then they will spend it on Apple. If someone does not want to spend £1500 on a laptop then they will buy a PC. It is as simple as that. As for me, I want to buy a MBP and I am willing to shell out for it, latest tech included or not. If I was not willing to shell out for it, I will buy a PC. Comparing Apple specs to PC specs is like comparing apples to oranges. Yeah they are both fruits, but with oranges you need to peel the skin off first to eat it.
What you are getting with Apple is a product that has hardware that is designed to work with software. Which means less number of "variables" compared to the PC market. What you are getting is an all-in-one, all-encompasing computing solution. All that and the "turn-it-on-and-go" aka "it -just-works" which results in less headache should be worth the additional "apple tax" IMHO.
Were you stamping your feet at the same time that you typed this?
I think the question you should ask is: Who types whilst standing up?
I want a Mac, but I don't buy into the gimmicky "IT'S A LIFESTYLE GUYZ" crap.
If I'm paying a large sum of money for a computer, I want to know it's up to date. Just knowing it looks good or it "just works lol!" isn't a selling point for me. My Windows PC "just works" as well, and I built that myself.
Which is a shame, because my white-plastic macbook is serving my parents well and I'd like to dip into OSX again.
I guess I'm not really their target consumer